September 18, 2018

Kavanaugh's accuser might never be able to provide a specific time and place for the alleged attack, and you may think Kavanaugh will do all right simply avowing that he has no memory of ever doing anything like that. That answer creates the occasion for any other woman to come forward and say he did something like that to me, and it will be relevant not just to his actions long ago, but his truthfulness in the present.

But the bigger problem is that Kavanaugh can only say he has no memory of something. And Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is telling us that he was very drunk, so maybe a failure to remember could be attributed to drinking. He could honestly testify to no memory of the incident, but still need to establish that he didn't have a memory blanked out by alcohol use. Now, since we're not going to hear of the specific time and place of the incident, Kavanaugh will need to say that he never, in that entire period, experienced alcohol-induced amnesia. (And what if he can only say I have no memory of losing my memory?!).

If Kavanaugh denies ever experiencing alcohol-induced amnesia during that period, anyone who hung out with him back then is a potential source of testimony that they saw him drunk and, especially damning, they had reason to know that he couldn't remember what he had done. Is there anybody who knew Kavanaugh in high school who has tales of things Kavanaugh couldn't remember later? Did Kavanaugh ever have a discussion with anyone about alcohol-induced amnesia?

Once we get this far, you can see that whether Christine Blasey Ford's story is accurate or not, Monday's hearing can be used to trap Kavanaugh in lies, and then it's not a possible attempted rape from 30 years ago but perjury in the present.

Remember, the other person in the room, according to Ford, was Mark Judge, and Mark Judge seems inclined to corroborate Kavanaugh, but Judge is on record as a having been "completely annihilated" in high school. I'm reading that in HuffPo:

But Mark Judge, now a writer and filmmaker, wrote [a] memoir two decades ago... Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk, of getting drunk his first time at age 14, binge drinking at teen parties and a struggle with alcoholism. His “immersion” into alcohol began the end of his sophomore year during a typical annual “beach week,” when Catholic high school students headed to the shore after school was out. “Now I had an opportunity to make some headway [with girls]. Most of the time everyone, including the girls, was drunk. If you could breathe and walk at the same time, you could hook up,” he wrote.

His drinking became so extreme that he had blackout episodes, and woke up on the floor of a restaurant bathroom with no memory of how he got there. Once “I had the first beer, I found it impossible to stop until I was completely annihilated,” he wrote.

Judge said last week he had no memory of the incident described by Kavanaugh’s accuser.

But Ford said Judge was extremely drunk, so how good is the inference that it didn't happen? It's also possible that Judge had one of his admitted episodes of alcohol-induced amnesia. You can use Judge's statement in whatever way you think is correct (and nothing stops you from using it to support the conclusion you like). On its surface it corroborates Kavanaugh's lack of memory, but it also can support an alcohol-induced amnesia theory.

If you want to go further down into this dark place, here's some more from that HuffPo article:

Judge’s book changes the name of his high school to “Loyola Prep,” and makes a glancing reference at a character he calls “Bart O’Kavanaugh.” A girl at a party, wrote Judge, asked him: “Do you know Bart O’Kavanaugh? I heard he puked in someone’s car the other night.” Judge responds: “Yeah he passed out on his way back from a party.”

In his 2005 book God and Man at Georgetown Prep, Judge slammed his high school and the “insane liberalism” of Catholicism in the 1960s. He said the school was “overrun” by gay priests — part of the church’s “lavender mafia,” he later wrote in The Daily Caller — and was infused with alcohol.

“Only a person in denial still claims that something did not go terribly wrong in the Church after the 1960s, and that more often than not that thing was homosexual priests molesting teenage boys,“Judge wrote in the The Daily Caller in 2011. “My own take is that it had less to do with homosexuality than with the feverish libertinism of the 60s. Liberals have no interest in connecting the dots from liberalism to sexual abuse.... I’m guilty as well, at least of the bouts of dehumanizing lust that is part of the fallen world and being human ... we all have that monster to some extent.”

Unless the guy has some kind of hidden record of being blotto -- something that would have come out of all the background checks -- there's not going to be grounds to challenge a straightforward denial. What's the follow-up?

"Have you ever been hit on the head so hard, you could not remember what happened?"

"Do you remember the evils you committed as an infant?"

There's a lot to establish to judge the accusation against him. I'm not one to deny it outright and most of the deconstruction I've seen is a mess of fallacy and conjecture, but the hearings really need to establish more facts than we actually know right now.

That answer creates the occasion for any other woman to come forward and say he did something like that to me, and it will be relevant not just to his actions long ago, but his truthfulness in the present.

Kavanagh has undergone multiple FBI background checks and at least two senate confirmation hearings. Where were al of these women before now? Didn't they have the same duty to keep him off the Court of Appeals? Seems to me that any such action would say more about the truthfulness of the women than Kavanagh...….

To me the question is how can an unreported and unsubstantiated non crime from a teenage party 30 years ago be raised in the final hour to derail a reputation and nomination. The Democrats have become unsurpassed at inventing any pretext to destroy reputations and to marching us towards a totalitarian future.

The question that can destroy Christine Blasey Ford: Have you ever been so drunk you could not remember what happened during your so-called sexual assault, and that you can't remember when it happened, and you can't remember anybody else that was there besides Kavanaugh, and you can't remember where it was?"

Mr friends in school drank as teenagers, but I can't tell you 35 years later whether a single one of them ever had his or her memory blanked out by alcohol use. This is 35 years ago! My memories of drinking with friends is incredible sketchy and it is not because I would have consumed a few beers each time. Living a normal life wipes out all of those memories; and if some psychiatrist tried to "revive" them through a therapy session 30 years later, I would not trust those memories. I think I have a rather sharp mind and memory, but maybe I'm abnormal; do others really remember details like that from 35 years ago? OTOH I am 100% certain that I never assaulted anyone during that time. I know that because I know who I am and what I was capable of sober or not. That's why I identify with BK on this one. I don't think he did it.

Obama writes a book that claims he was born in Kenya; but we are told its crazy to think he was actually born in Kenya, even if his wife also makes the claim once.

But a second person writes a book claiming a fictional character, based on a real person, did something; and that means there is no doubt that it is exactly what was done?

All Judge has to say is a ghost writer wrote that part of the book. Kavanaugh only needs to say "No." And Blasey needs to come up with a "when was the party?", "where was the party?", "how did you get to and from the party?", "who else was at the party that isn't named in Judge's book?", and "why were you at the party if you don't know how you got there and who the other people were?". We already know Blasey's answer to "ever been so drunk you couldn't remember what happened", because it only takes one beer.

The fact they chose Judge as the other guy made this seem even more fishy, he is the only one who has a paper trail indicating he was a drinker. Ford has also said she was an alcoholic and promiscuous in her youth. Perhaps she offered guys at the party sex and they declined, Kavanaugh had a GF at the time.

Something tells me they have a 4th person, not Judge, who is willing to testify. Trump and Kellyanne Conway were too willing to allow further exploration.

Anyway I have a theory that kids have moral agency by 14 latest, even if they're not held legally responsible. And I think teens feel that and are ashamed or at least embarrassed to admit to things at the time.

Were there any unsolved murders in the vicinity of Georgetown during his years there? How can we be certain that he is not a serial murderer during periods of black out drunkenness. It's okay to have rapists and murderers on the Circuit Courts, but it's imperative to draw the line at the Supreme Court.

Wow. The Professor has gone full in on the last minute hail Mary tossed by a far Left college professor and confirmed anti-Trumper, with abysmal ratings on Rate My Professor that indicate a definite borderline psycho personality flaw.

Not to mention, Republicans have given WIDE berths to every last Far Left SCOTUS Democrat pick to come down the pike.

Ginsberg was the general council for the ACLU, and once opined that SOUTH AFRICA'S Constitution was superior to ours, and trashed Trump in interviews, generating a strong case for her recusal on ANY issues involving Trump that may come before the court.

"If Kavanaugh denies ever experiencing alcohol-induced amnesia during that period, anyone who hung out with him back then is a potential source of testimony that they saw him drunk and, especially damning, they had reason to know that he couldn't remember what he had done."

Well then, if you think that's a possibility; then lets go with a Clintonian answer for Kavanaugh. "It depends on what you mean by know? How can you 'know' a time of being too drunk to 'not know'?"

“I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time”

And:

“This is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes . . . Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making this accusation until she identified herself yesterday.”

Not: "I can't remember" etc.

Of course, the question about drinking wouldn't "destroy" him: he can and will deny it.

I know we are dealing with a political charade, and Althouse is just engaging in the regular rationalizations from the sideline, but normally the burden of proof would be on the accuser--to show when an incident happened and where it happened. She would have to show evidence for her apparent claim that Kanvanaugh was extremely drunk, so extremely he couldn't remember. Normally, we wouldn't take anyone's word about anything 30 years after the "fact," without very detailed corroboration.

Of course, this is and ought to be a non-issue non-crime: nothing much happened, even if you take Ford at her word, and it is irrelevant to the SCOTUS appointment. But the Dems play hardball, the GOP are pussies, and Althouses everywhere cheer on the circus cuz "women's rights."

Which is why none of this should be entertained. It's a trap and grossly unfair to Kavanaugh.

There has to be some standard of accountability for the accuser. It's simply not believable that she can't narrow it down to a particular month, and a particular party. If this story is true, she knows the host and she knows more people who were there than just Kavanaugh and Judge.

Yes, the whole thing is Kafkaesque or Orwellian or something. One of those things. It’s a farce exploiting the moral panic in our culture about sexual abuse. Democrats fight to win. They’re pissed they couldn’t replace Scalia with Garland and see an opportunity to flip the Senate. Of course they’re not going to let another conservative on the Court.

They’re lying assholes. It’s up to Republicans to get the voters to see that.

The whole confirmation process cries out for some sort of "Have you no decency?" moment. Unfortunately, I suspect that the senators, the media, and the activists are so lacking in decency that it wouldn't make any difference.

This is a last minute despicable hit job by a leftist activist with a history of trouble. I hope they plan to call the therapist and subpoena the rest of her notes, since there has been a waiver of confidentiality.

There is also a suggestion that this is the last confirmation hearing. The next nominee will be submitted for a vote with no hearings.

Whether Kavanaugh did anything is not at all related to history, actual events. It's related to whether because of political leanings a person wants him to have done it.

If they are not likely to agree with his potential rulings, he did the thing he is accused of, and so the challenge is to reverse-engineer a pseudo-rational way of justifying this assertion. The brain is good at this, making what seems rational out of something that is entirely disconnected from actuality.

If a person is likely to agree with his rulings, then he didn't do it.

There's no way to know and no one we can trust to be objective.

It's all a matter of faith, one way or the other. Politics as religion. And the end goal justifies what is true and good. Teleological suspension of the ethical defines contemporary political actions.

But it's our religion and we're rational people, not like those crazy theistic religionists, who believe things they can't prove and let it shape their ethics which are clearly wrong, because shut up.

I agree with Virgil. I’m younger then the judge, and almost all of my drinking escapades were in college, not high school. I do recall that I frequently observed that whatever memory issues some people had when drinking apparently didn’t affect me; my memory was the same as it would have been of any busy late night, alcohol or not. But looking back now, 20 years hence, I can remember big events, and I can generally remember what my character was (I.e., that I would not have done certain things), but the rest is just tiny snippets, little bits of conversations or jokes, with most of the context missing. That’s just the way memory works.

I’ve got a lot of concern with either party attempting to testify here - the possibility of mid-remembering is and unfairly damaging one’s credibility is extremely high.

Gee, it's almost like the accusation was crafted to be impossible to refute, huh?

Oh well, you've already decided he's guilty. What's the point of the rest of this?

This guy's whole life--his entire career, everything he's been working for every day, all of it--is over now. He's been smeared as an attempted rapist and if he dares to deny it he'll be smeared again as a liar.

That's all it takes! She can't even nail down the YEAR this supposedly happened, but the accusation is enough. Hand it to them: they've learned from the UVA fake gang rape blowup. In that one she gave a number of specific details that could be examined and proven to be false. But in this one, and I'm sure in tons of subsequent accusations of long-ago sexual assault we'll soon see, the LACK of any details that could be investigated is held up as PROOF! It's really quite clever.

Oh well, fuck this guy, fuck his family, and fuck the many millions of voters who assumed the Republican party would actually get something done.

It will be high drama on Monday. I predict there will be no definitive outcome and we all will be left with our intuitions to make the judgment. Since hardcore lefties’ and righties’ intuitions have been damaged by tribalism, it will come down to those damned undecideds to swing the polls. And polls will determine the future of Brett Kavanaugh, I’m afraid.

If Republicans were smart, they’d make sure the first snap poll comes from a friendly pollster. It’s sad, but it’s come to this.

So, was Animal House a souped-up version of a typical class at that elite Jesuit secondary school? What was Brett Kavanaugh like? Was he a gentleman--he seems to have conducted himself that way as an adult. Did he get in trouble in high school? Is the story plausible? Was he a problem boozer? Will we hear more from Mark Judge? Where are the others who participated in the house party?

This whole thing seems out of character for Kavanaugh--but maybe he has been falsely portrayed as a paragon.

tim maguire said..."There has to be some standard of accountability for the accuser."

The only accountability for the accuser will occur if she somehow damages the Democrat narrative in her testimony, at which point she will be jettisoned by the activists. As long as she avoids damaging the Democrats, she will be lauded for her courage, and her career will be advanced substantially.

This highlights the perverse nature of accusations like this in political hearings. In a criminal proceeding regarding an allegation like this, the first step is the accuser must establish the basis of a case. There must be sufficient evidence to support the allegations. That seems lacking in this case, or is at least unclear as to whether that burden has been met.

But because this is a political hearing, and our instincts are, ok let's hear both sides. Now we have effectively put Kavanaugh in a position where he has to defend himself against a mushy, not well formed accusation. Which lets people who are already emotionally primed to not like Kavanaugh and not want to see him confirmed, claim he didn't properly defend himself and refute the allegations.

I keep seeing people referencing the fact that CBF had sex with something like 60 guys in high school and college and that she was a drunk. Where are people getting this? Maybe this is why the MSM was in full protection mode last night and this AM. "CBF must be treated gently."

The following are fair questions given the stakes here. "Can you recall the names of all 64 boys and men you had sex with in HS and college? If not, why not? How can you recall the name of the one guy you did NOT have sex with?"

I guess I’m functioning under the assumption that when the FBI does a background check, they talk to former classmates (college and HS), the former neighbors, new neighbors, girlfriends. They would interview coworkers, teachers, family members, friends. If the FBI is as thorough as we have been lead to believe (6 times he was investigated) it seems to me someone would have said 1) Brett was a straight arrow and not a party boy 2) Brett hung around with Mark Judge, his drinking buddy 3) oh yeah, Good Time Brett, he was a party boy. Evidently everyone remembers BK #1.Except Ms. Ford of course. And still, why does BK have to prove he didn’t do it? Isn’t it up to Ford to present something, anything, as proof besides her very hazy memory? Did the FBI interview Mark Judge? Is Judge a good, better best friend of BK? Or just a passing friend/classmate? There are just too many holes in the story. And 35 years later? Color me skeptical.

The mistake here is giving any of this enough importance to have a senate hearing over it. It's validating a situation that doesn't deserve validation. We will be no closer to anything except giving the Democrats license to do this again- and again. I spent years teaching high school. Some of my students were really bright when it came to academics, but very stupid about sex and alcohol. They learned from their mistakes and became fine upstanding citizens. None of them were ever charged with sexual assault or even drunk driving. They, both the boys and girls, were guilty of believing a couple of beers would make them better at initiating sexual contact with the opposite sex. If we banned anyone guilty of having an underage drink or fumbling with buttons from government service, DC would be a ghost town. I'm not saying Kavanaugh is guilty. I'm saying he has nothing to be guilty of one way or the other. Other than being an adolescent whether he went to the party or not.

I for one cannot respect young Kavanaugh if it is true that he talked a drunken 15 year old in her swimsuit at an un-supervised , drunken, pool party into an upstairs bedroom where he got her into the bed under his body, and then he just let her escape. That boy needed wrestling training.

I speculated yesterday that there will soon come a day when someone accused will admit whatever charge has been made against him and the drama will then come from those approving a nominee or candidate. It will be difficult for that first person to do that because not only is the potential job on the line, but conceivably the existing one too.

Alcohol affects different people differently. Some people black out after drinking not very much (and I have read that this is a warning signal that you are likely to become an alcoholic and should preferably stay dry); some people never black out and remain quite cognizant of their behavior though totally drunk otherwise.

And AA is getting out ahead of the tale when she confidently states that we will never find out when and where the alleged incident is supposed to have taken place. It actually should not be too difficult to establish that and may already have been done.

The lefties are evil nasty little shits who will stop at nothing to get what they want. And what they ultimately want is to force the rest of us to wear a ball gag as they ram their fists up our asses. It’s hard not to imagine scenarios playing out the next civil war. Gun and ammo sales should continue to run strong.

I have always maintained that even public figures are entitled to presumption of innocence. Regardless of the public figure's politics. No one should be disqualified based on innuendo, suspicion, or unsubstantiated allegations.

I said that with the Clintons and their scandals.

I said that with Bush 43 and the DUI charge.

And I'm saying it now with Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh doesn't need a defense because he's not on trial here. The burden is on his accuser (Ms. Ford) to substantiate her charges with more than just "I seem to remember..."

Usually, a juvenile's record is expunged when they reach maturity, which is 18 years old. There's a reason for that. Should a teenager be held accountable for everything that they did when they were a juvenile for the rest of their lives? How about it, Althouse?

When the Access Hollywood tape came out I imagined that it hardened a viewpoint many women had of Donald Trump, of two guys laughing and joking around “locker room talk” and women watching feeling angry/disgusted/a little fearful.

Now I wonder if this event will make certain “Never Trumpers” turn harshly against the Dems. You know the Romney types who are reserved and honorable but who probably had a moment or two when they were adolescents that they regret. Will this event say to them “It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if you’re civil, it doesn’t matter if you’re reasonable, it doesn’t matter if you try to reach out, across the aisle. What matters is that you’re on the other side and if the need arises you must be destroyed”?

“…Monday's hearing can be used to trap Kavanaugh in lies, and then it's not a possible attempted rape from 30 years ago but perjury in the present.”

My comment from yesterday (9/17/18, 4:47 PM):

“Kavanaugh answering questions in this situation would be not much different than Trump sitting down with Mueller: this is not to be a good-faith attempt to determine truth, it is a public-relations perjury trap.

He will have to try to answer cobweb questions about her non-specific dates, non-specific years, non-specific people, non-specific locations, non-specific parties -- and anything he doesn't remember absolutely correctly after 30 years will be raised in triumph as proof of his lying, and his lying will be proof of his guilt.

Anything he doesn't remember? Proof of his obfuscation, and his obfuscation will be proof of his guilt.

For he is lying there in wait for you inside that bottle of whiskey. Waiting for you to take him into your mouth. Waiting to get down into your guts where he can do his devil's work. Liquor is the most foul, evil thing in this here world. It destroyed good men like myself. It'll destroy you too. Beer is not much better - it's slower, cheaper. So take these words of advice. And remember, you heard them from a poor sinner, got no more cause to lie, 'cause he's going to meet his Maker. Now he's ready. Well that's all I've got to say.

Biff said...The only accountability for the accuser will occur if she somehow damages the Democrat narrative in her testimony, at which point she will be jettisoned by the activists. As long as she avoids damaging the Democrats, she will be lauded for her courage, and her career will be advanced substantially.

Indeed, she and Cindy Sheehan will have loads to talk about before the year is over.

Let’s say you are Mark Judge, and you were at that party. Your drinking buddy pulls a girl into a bedroom to make out with her. At first you were down with it, laughing and encouraging. But then you realize through your drunken haze that he is going too far, and urge him to stop. And when he won’t stop you jump on him, enabling the girl to escape. You are the hero who stopped a rape, even though the girl thinks you were complicit.

Now that’s something you might remember, despite being very drunk at the time. And let’s posit that the friend was not Brett Kavanaugh, but someone else. Do you come forward with the truth, and exonerate Brett, who says he wasn’t there?

That’s the only good way out of this for Kavanaugh, so what should we make of Judge not doing that? That tends to implicate Kavanaugh.

This doesn't make sense to me. I have periods where I can't remember what happened, every night when I sleep. And there were periods in college when I got so drunk I can't remember what happened.And looking back from forty years away, the majority of my life I can't remember what happened. Memory is fleeting.Nevertheless, I don't think I would have any hesitation at all at testifying that I have never raped anyone or tried to. I don't do that kind of thing, and never have. Even when I was drunk, I have clear memories of knowing right from wrong. Probably not well enough to decide a Title IX case, but I know for sure (without actually remembering) that I have could never be so drunk that I would do a thing like that. From all my experience of being drunk - some of which I remember or thought over afterward - I have a pretty clear perception of what I would do and wouldn't do.

I can think of a lot of questions that would destroy Christine Blasey Ford. The letter she sent to Senator Feinstein in July making the attempted rape/murder charge is so poorly written I do not think Ford will come across as a credible credentialed witness.

In my opinion something happened at sometime to this woman but she has not really recovered her memory of what it was. Instead she has developed a false memory of an acceptable trauma, like Lena Dunham. It's OK to be traumatized by a Republican but it would not be OK to be traumatized by an encounter with a liberal or by encounters of a liberal nature so in her pain and confusion she has fixed up a better memory, something for which she will even gain applause from some although paradoxically at the same time, really no one believes her. Her claim is that a single encounter with a drunken boy at fifteen is ruling her whole life? and her a psychologist! Who believes that? No one. Yet some are telling her they do. She's totally out of her depth and her messed-upness is just being used by powerful people, the way Bill used Monica, and her confusions are being fixed in place within her by lawyers and party operatives encouraging her to testify publicly under oath to her made-up memories and they won't care at all what happens to her afterward.

Whereas Kavanaugh, who is an adult like Clarence Thomas, will be confirmed on the Supreme Court and merely informed of the depths of Democratic depravity by his experiences.

If asked that question Kavanaugh replies with 'no'. He's got 20 or 30 years in public to back it up. And 65 friends and acquaintances that vouch for him. And a lifelong friend, female, who says he's not and has never been that sort of guy.

I haven't followed every little "revelation" in this nasty little affair, has it even been credibly alleged that Kavanaugh was most definitely some sort of party dude back in 1982? Has Kavanaugh himself or anyone oestensibly on his side ever claimed he drank and went to parties as a teen? Has it been established that he even knew this Judge character in highschool and/or that he travelled in the same circles with him?

The problem is that there is no question that will be able to destroy Christine Blasey, because it would be regarded as bullying by men, and blaming the 'victim.' Still, such questions should be asked. The same one: Have you ever been so drunk that you don't remember what happened? Have you had drunken sex and regretted it the next day? Have you ever lied about a sexual encounter?

I'm getting really, really irritated at people saying this crazy woman deserves to be heard. Why? Nothing she has said should disqualify the judge. This isn't about her getting justice. No matter what happened, she punted on her chance for justice decades ago. It's not about her! Her feelings are irrelevant to the nomination process. Her story is irrelevant to the nomination process. Her behavior in all this has been scandalous. She should be shamed and shunned for what she's done. This is an outrage. She has done enormous damage to the nation and all morally decent, patriotic citizens should be angry about it. It may take decades to heal the harm she's caused. Regardless of the outcome of the nomination.

I'm still predicting Ford won't show for Monday's hearing...or any hearing.

I'd agree there's a stunt coming. Nothing we haven't seen before from the lefties. Something like 'it would be too insensitive to have her questioned', or lefties get to strut during questioning then interrupt the GOP, or she insists she's questioned last so the left has time to adjust the story, or somebody pulls the fire alarm. I'm just not sure which one.

Desperation plays have a low success rate. That is why they are only done when desperate. People don't usually mortgage the house and put it all on Number 17 unless the loan shark is stopping by with a blowtorch and a pair of pliers in the morning.

Desperation plays are also done when you have little to lose. That's why Hail Mary Passes and onside kicks generally happen in the last minutes of the game.

But Feinstein and the Democrats have a lot to lose. She is not just gambling with her own chips, but those of the Senate and House.

Kavanaugh will most likely be confirmed -- Desperation plays are also pretty easy to defend against. If the Democrats don't take the house, Feinstein gets a new position as Democratic Party Scapegoat. That is a hard position for a 85-year old senior senator to take on.

The Cracker Emcee Rampant said...Jeez, Althouse. No wonder you taught law instead of practicing it. Your posited question only has relevance if he was blacked-out the night in question. Otherwise, it’s witch-trial stuff.

You're not wrong, but neither is Althouse: the beauty is the accuser will not and cannot specify the date--she won't even narrow it down to the nearest YEAR! This, magically, puts the burden on the accused: if he was at any point in a 3-4 year span drunk enough that he has an imperfect memory of the night AND attended anything that can be construed as a party (since, naturally, she can't be certain how many other people were there) in the general area where he lived...then he cannot PROVE he didn't do the thing he's accused of.

See what I mean? It's so very clever. He has, literally, no way to defend himself.

Ironically Professor Althouse just yesterday said she didn't want super-squeaky-clean saints to be the only ones appointed for governmental positions. But the only possible way to avoid this obvious trap is to be able to say "no, I was never drunk, I never drank at all." Of course then Althouse would likely object to that!!

It really is something. This guy's whole life is fucked and there is nothing he can possible do about it.But hey, it's worth it for abortion, yeah?

> Why do people here think ANY of this has to do with facts, or even Kavanaugh?

many shuffle through details playing Encyclopedia Brown

Aha, it was raining on that night, and she did not mention an umbrella!

Mixing metaphors, maybe you can pan out a nugget to reassure yourself

Voters will take from this whatever there were predisposed to see or peers tell them is rightthink.

If drama can move the voters, then K or whatever clone replaces him can be used as symbols from now on. Maybe they can move the Senate and raise some real hell if enough people are upset. Then there is 2020 - the Republicans are Kavanaughs, clean and Catholic on the inside, but raging bigots/racists abusers deep inside.

the message is

Its time for a change, and that change is Socialism/Social Justice, the one thing that has not been tried (the right way, and fully)!

As I have previously commented, this reminds me of the move "Anatomy of a Murder" where the DA and the assistant AG look at each other and say, "We've got to use him." Then they bring in the jailhouse snitch with a criminal record six feet long.

Folks, I don’t think AA is approving of this way of treating Kavanaugh. She is making an observation about the way the burden of proof has been shifted. She is doing a Scott Adams: persuasion when the facts don’t matter.

"Democrats are going to continue doing this sort of thing until they face negative consequences. The quickest and best way to send a message is for Democrats to lose the House election badly."

Mockery and shaming of the people partipating in this travesty is the best way to send a message. Your not fighting back advice has been relegated to the dustbin of history along with wimpy punching bags like Romney.

Trump changed the game, we aren't going to politely take it anymore. Total von Clausewitz style fucking war.

Damn I hope Ford says the night is "seared, seared into [her] memory."I mean John F'n Kerry wouldn't make up or misremember spending Christmas in Cambodia, and Ford would never make up or misremember such a traumatic attack. Obviously.

This is absolutely retarded. Like scandaniavian countries abort out of existence retarded.

So if sat at home in 1990 and drank until he blacked out, he is in trouble? Jesus Christ the affirmative action required to put such a keen legal mind into a tenured cushy taxpayer funded job is truly dizzying.

I had 3 instances in HS where I was puking drunk but none where I was blackout, amnesiac drunk. I actually have clear recollections of the 3 occasions since they were all celebratory. Terrible hangovers but no blackout. So I doubt BK ever amnesiac drunk.

That's the funny part--he can say "I only ever got black-out drunk in another state" but since his accuser isn't being asked to specify where or when this alleged attack happened that'd be enough! Kinda gives the game away when you accept such ridiculously vague accusations, though...may as well simply say the accusation itself is proof of guilt.

But help me out, Professor: you said yesterday that you want judges who aren't saints. Your posts here indicate you agree a nominee won't be able to defend himself from accusations like this one, flimsy and vague as they are, if he was ever seriously drunk. So are you willing to accept someone so accused (since they won't be able to refute the accusation) or would you prefer the only type of person who COULD refute the accusation, namely the saint you also rejected?

Or do you reject them all?? Can't be too good and being too bad means you'll be accused like this and unable to defend yourself, so you're out too.

I'm sure you're not so sexist as to think nominating only women would solve the problem, right? I mean women know how to party too, and I right?!

"Gee, it's almost like the accusation was crafted to be impossible to refute, huh? Oh well, you've already decided he's guilty. What's the point of the rest of this?"

You need to reread. I've said not such thing. I have no position on whether K is guilty, but I am seeing a trap that he needs to be able to stay out of. If you don't want to look at it, you have your head in the sand.

I'm tired of seeing the same statements about how it isn't fair to do this to somebody. We've talked and talked about that. This post introduces a specific evidence problem and the la-la-la-I'm-not-listening is very foolish. You need to project, imagine what will happen at the hearing, and be prepared. Don't keep saying the things K supporters say to each other. You're also encouraging K supporters to run into another trap and trash the woman.

And attacking me here when I'm analyzing things in what is, really, cruel neutrality is showing how unprepared you are. I don't want to have to laugh at your pain next week, so please shape up and get serious.

You’re joking, right? Have you become braindead in retirement? It’s sad when that happens to seniors. Blogging isn’t helping. Maybe doing more crosswords and sudoku will help preserve your mental faculties.

I think most of you are missing the point. This is being touted, not just to destroy Kavanaugh, but to give a plausible reason for the Red State Democrats to vote against him without damaging their electoral chances. "Well, Gee Willikers folks, but I can't in good conscious vote for a yeller bellied, woman raping frat boy for the Supreme Court."

Manchin only has a 4 point lead if he votes against Kavanaugh.

This is trying to give them wiggle room...AND trying to destroy Kavanaugh.

It is particularly sad to see a so called legal academic embrace this sort of vilification by concern trolling Kavanaugh. "Gee, this question will REALLY fuck up Kavanaugh...I hope NOBODY USES IT! Are you guys listening?"

Perhaps it would have helped if she actually saw how legal abuses hit 'real' people (women I guess would be the only ones she's sympathetic to) instead of always treating them as clever intellectual exercises.

There is a reason why men don't vote for Democrats. This is how they are treated.

Now, I have to go back to work screwing the American people from my little league bench on the Court of Appeals and I worked until pretty late last night as a matter of fact making sure that the little guy gets fuk'd royally. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Christine Blasey - not even a cigar was used this time. She wanted to suck my dick, but I politely refused. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work screwing the unsuspecting American people from the house-of-horror chambers I love so much. Thank you for putting your faith in me. P.S. I will smelt Roe once on the Supreme Court.

"Here's what Kavanaugh said: “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time” And:“This is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes . . . Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making this accusation until she identified herself yesterday.” Not: "I can't remember" etc. Of course, the question about drinking wouldn't "destroy" him: he can and will deny it."

Do you really lack the imagination to see how a trap can be built here? Yes, he categorically denied it and did not leave the loophole of saying only that he did not remember. Now, look at my question. A senator asks him to describe his use of alcohol. K either lies or tells the truth, knowing many other people have info on how much he drank. The question about alcohol-induced amnesia is asked. He denies. But we have Judge's book and maybe others can tell tales of K's drinking and forgetting. But maybe K doesn't deny, because he knows to deny would be untrue. Then what? He's reexamined on his categorical denial. How does he know he hasn't blacked it out. Ford says he was drunk and Judge was there too and drunk. Ford drank to the point of forgetting. Etc. etc. Does the denial remain absolute or must he concede that it could have been forgotten.

It's not a court of law and the Republicans have already lost. Ford can push off the hearing now with various excuses etc, and even if she shows up, what questions can be asked of her that don't risk blowback.we'll get the usual line how it's common for assault victims to have hazy memories etc etc. And this is all consistent with a real assault victims. No one can say: if it's consistent to have hazy memories it's very likely she's misidentified her assailant (to be charitable) Unless kavanaugh himself is willing to confront her, he'll prob be toast

"And attacking me here when I'm analyzing things in what is, really, cruel neutrality is showing how unprepared you are. I don't want to have to laugh at your pain next week, so please shape up and get serious."

We aren't students who have to pretend that your reasoning and arguments make any sense, are competent, or are worth responding to with any other than mockery. You don't hold the power of grades over us, so take your lecturing feminist schoolmarm bullshit and shove it.

You are an accessory to the rape of from what all accounts show to be a good man and mainstream jurist's life. All of your bitching about how its mean to point that out doesn't change that.

I love it. Commissar Althouse thinks if a man ever got blackout drunk in his life he can be “credibly accused” of a sex crime and the presumption is he did it. Hear that, fellas? Your life and career hang in a precarious balance if you ever drank heavily enough on a night to impair your memory. Temperance or abstention is the only acceptable life for a man.

Ms. Ford has had two months to prepare. She's washed out her social accounts. She's had lawyers do strategic questioning over and over again to prep her. Evidence that is exculpatory has been removed when it could be. The people most likely to exonerate Kavanaugh, if possible, have been neutralized, as have folks who could question her credibility.

And Kavanaugh gets a couple of days to fight that, with the Press and Althouse pretending to 'cruel neutrality' which is code for 'being able to punch you without admitting it.'

As long as the Althouses of the world don't make their fellow travelers pay a price for these actions, we get more of them. Republicans being against them have zero effect because they are already against Democrats.

But no, that isn't happening. Has Althouse written even a local op ed decrying these practices? She has some heft. But the majority of her posts are questioning 'should Kavanaugh be believed'?

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that teenage drinking will be a problem for Ford. The "one beer" thingie sounds preemptive to me, a tell if you will. The fact that we have heard very little about her as a teenager is also suspicious.

I don't want to have to laugh at your pain next week, so please shape up and get serious.

It's the GOP Senate that has to get serious. A lot of us, some of us even have Jeff Flake as a Senator, are prepared to see McConnell fold and give up. That will be good for gun sales that have collapsed after Trump's election.

This is an obvious late hit job by DiFi who is probably worried that her certifiably insane opponent in the November election (It's California so no GOP opponent) will accuse her of not being crazy enough.

I think it's 50-50 the accuser will not show up Monday. Too traumatic.

I once knew a woman who was going to a psychologist for her alcoholism, The psychologist convinced her that her father had molested her in childhood. He had been dead for years so she went and peed on his grave.

Recovered memories are one possibility here. I hope the committee subpoenas all the therapist's notes.

Photographic proof has been discovered of Kavanaugh as a very young, yet fully responsible, man committing clearly disqualifying atrocities in the 2nd grade. Numerous witnesses claim to have seen it happen to multiple victims. Dems demand an investigation.

Per the timing and vagueness of the accusations, the credibility of the accuser would be all that matters to me. Her professional accomplishments are worth little as they come from the liberal world. I would like to see a complete review of every email sent, every Facebook post, every speech given, and every document that she contributed to, for the last 20-30 years. Her relationships, family life to present, should be analyzed and be an open book. Hiding anything, would be disqualifying. She must prove that her word is worth more than his.

Question: Madam, you stated you wanted anonymity but it appears that you set up a polygraph, destroyed your social media accounts and have been curiously in the company of several lawyers for long periods of time. How much preparation have you undertaken to testi-lie...I mean testify to the Committee?"

Question: What counsel have you retained and how often have you met them? Who is paying your legal bills?

Question: What color blouse were you wearing? Did you swim that day...oh...excuse me. You can't tell me what YEAR it was, much less what day it was. You don't know the weather or the people there except two...a drunk and the accused. How charmingly and strategically selective your memory is.

Question: Will you be willing to open up the applicable files by your therapist to Committee scrutiny to get a timeline of when you decided to remember these things?

So, commenter Michael K suggests ALTHOUSE is "trolling" us....but ALTHOUSE now says she is "analyzing things in what is, really, cruel neutrality..." - so I now suggest her choice of the adjective "cruel" as a self-description is being overly kind and self-serving.ALTHOUSE also says: "I have no position on whether K is guilty"...Ahhhh - so at least we now know ALTOUSE does indeed think like an attorney and is neither a Troller nor a Blogger.

"One question in the "cruel Neutrality" department I haven't seen answered is did Ann ever have Debra Katz as a student ?"

What an excellent question. With much more evidence than the lying twat who is attempting to rape Kavanaugh's career, I can say with certainty that Katz graduated class of 1984. What year did Althouse begin her affirmative action based reign of mediocrity at UW? Why 1984.

Collusion? Did Katz and Althouse get blackout drunk and plot to someday rape a judicial nominee who might not be keen with abortion on demand? The silence of both of them speaks volumes. I think we need hearings on the matter.

Is it so hard to believe that he just never did it? Few men have, drunk or not, and he specifically seems to be the kind of man who wouldn't.

Now the accuser, who is a committed lefty, which by definition includes being willing to do anything to win, also has a personal family history with Kavanaugh's mother ruling against her parents as the judge in a lawsuit. Put all that together with the absolute horror she must feel at having another conservative on the Supreme Court for life, and it's very easy to see her lying.

Occam's razor suggests she's lying or at the very least got the wrong man and doesn't care to be wrong about it. Confusion is her fall back excuse if she's found to be lying.

He simply denies ever doing it, or being drunk enough to not know. I drank to great excess as a young man, and I'm confident that I never did any similar thing or was too drunk to remember, becuase even if you were, somebody will tell you what you did the next day.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley on Tuesday raised the possibility that next week’s high-stakes open hearing to examine the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh could be canceled if the accuser doesn’t accept the committee’s invitation.

Grassley, R-Iowa, scheduled a hearing for Monday for Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford to answer questions from senators about the allegation. But Grassley said during a Tuesday radio interview that his office has reached out several times to Ford and her attorneys to discuss her allegation, but has heard nothing back.

You really want to show how much you hate this cheap shot by Feinstein?

Then you don't need to say nasty stuff about Althouse.

Just tell us which candidate in which House or Senate race you are volunteering to help.

Michael K:

It isn't the GOP senate that has to get serious. It is the electorate. Like, me and you. GOP Senate goes out and parties with Feinstein and her ilk. They can't be trusted to do anything. Wanna send a message? Hand the Democrats a defeat in the house.

Until we get involved (I am looking at TX-7, TX-23, TX-32 myself) anything in these comment threads is so much digital hot air.

It could be that Kavanaugh never drank to the point of either losing control or having substantially diminished capacity, so he can tell the truth with a clear conscience without the "I don't recall" weasel words. Others may come forward to dispute him. We are in high school gossipland anyway, with liars having a clear shot at the microphone. Trimming his sails wouldn't spare him the liars. They are liars.

"Is this really what the institutions of this great country have come to?"

Political institutions like the Senate represent the electorate, and so they often reflect and exploit the electorate's worst impulses. This is a condemnation of the state of our electorate that the Democrats truly think this kind of dishonesty and gamesmanship will work ... because it really might work.

If politics were less tribal, and if people cared more about the individual and notions of fairness, this shit wouldn't fly. I'm showing my own tribalism here, but I think it's justified: the Democratic Party is the far worse offender in this regard. They play dirty pool and seek to divide the electorate into warring factions (identity politics) in order to win elections. That is their strategy in a nutshell.

When I was in high school, I knew someone who would become blackout drunk. That kind of drunkenness requires a lot of alcohol in a short period of time and is less common, I think, than drinking until you pass out and certainly less common than just being sloppy drunk. There's a big difference between "last night is a little hazy" and "it's a complete blank".

I could tell when he hit that "I'm not going to remember this tomorrow" point, but I don't know that someone who was less familiar with his behavior would have known.

That would be like using a criminal's past history in a trial to prove he committed the current crime he's accused of -- something that is often not allowed. It would be like blaming a promiscuous woman for encouraging her sexual assault because of past behavior.

Even if someone testified he got black out drunk every night except Sunday -- that still doesn't prove the party did not happen on a Sunday, that he was there, and that this happened.

"Does the denial remain absolute or must he concede that it could have been forgotten?"

-- If he concedes it could have been forgotten, he should also concede maybe while he was black out drunk that he found DB Cooper and killed Jimmy Hoffa. As in: Yeah, it is possible, but so ridiculously unlikely as to be not worth considering.

Until we get involved (I am looking at TX-7, TX-23, TX-32 myself) anything in these comment threads is so much digital hot air.

I agree but the Senate GOP, if they fold, will let the air out of the balloon. I am a volunteer for Lea Martinez Peterson in AZ CD 2, Martha McSally's seat. I watch the Pima County GOP facebook page fill with comments from supposed Republicans about how they won't vote for McSally because she is a "Rino."

The GOP often has a deathwish.

I quit Ricochet because I was suspended for two days for using the term "TDS" about one of their unhinged Trump haters.

It was the second time I quit Ricochet. The first time I was attacked for supporting Evolution.

I was convinced to go back by a friend.

The Republicans have no need for enemies as they have enough inside the tent. I am really libertarian but too many libertarians are unrealistic dreamers or Democrats in disguise.

Kavanaugh was an A student who played sports. So it’s enough for him to say he drank some in high school but didn’t drink too much st any one time because he didn’t want to jeopardize getting into a good college or getting thrown off the hoops team.

He can also say his mom was a local judge and he didn’t want to embarrass her or his family by getting in trouble like that. So he had a few beers from time to time but never got shitfaced and blacked out.

In the meantime, Ted Cruz campaign should be getting a few women together to accuse Beto of sexual assault. That guy has a documented history of being so shitfaced he caused a car accident and attempted to flee the scene at age 26.